Foul play: The NCAA's desire for politically correct team
mascots
By C.T. Rossi
web posted July 8, 2002
Th fact that college professors and administrators are oftentimes
at the center of activist movements will not raise any eyebrows.
Neither does it come as a surprise that some colleges and
universities institutionally act as a Leftist vanguard. But now the
association entrusted with maintaining the integrity of college
athletics has decided that its real mission lies not in supervising
sports, but in promoting a political agenda.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association, an institution never
truly devoid of political motives - as it is comprised of college
and university administrators - substantively entered the arena as
a political player with its April 2002 decision not to grant
championship athletic venues to states that prominently displayed
any Confederate imagery. In their official news release on the
subject, the NCAA said they held doubts on whether states that
displayed the Confederate flag had "the ability . . . to provide a
quality experience for the participants and fans and to conduct
those events safely." In other words, the NCAA was accusing
the people of the states of Mississippi and South Carolina, by
virtue of the design of their flags, of being a possible bodily threat
to (presumably black) college athletes. This far exceeds the
fictitious "right not to be offended." The NCAA seems to imply
that the Confederate flag is akin to a sign saying that redneck
lynching crews are open and ready for business.
Now the NCAA has turned its attention to a more pressing
issue. No, it's not a plan to address the plummeting graduation
rate of black male basketball players. Neither is it stronger
disciplinary measures against the ever-escalating legal troubles
encountered by college football players (nearly one-fourth of the
Northern Arizona University football team was arrested and
convicted last year). Nor are they addressing the admissions by
NBA and NFL players that they received large (and illegal) cash
payments from boosters.
Rather the NCAA has focused its energies on the
appropriateness of certain college mascots - more specifically
whether colleges and universities should be allowed to have
Indian nicknames. The NCAA has recommended this weighty
matter over to its Minority Opportunities and Issues Committee
for further study.
Over the past 30 years several colleges have voluntarily changed
mascots. Once upon a time Stanford University were monikered
the Indians but have since switched their name to match their
official color - the Cardinal - while their football helmets feature a
tree (who ever said political correctness had to make sense?).
Similarly, Syracuse University athletic teams were once the
Saltine Warriors - a dignified, if not imposing sounding,
nickname. Today, they are merely the Orange. Their mascot is a
fuzzy and fruity figure - Otto the Orange.
While one may disagree with an institution's decision to change
its mascot, it is the right of the institution to govern itself. But now
the NCAA, an extra-institutional governing body, is set to
tamper with decisions best left to the schools themselves. Will
the NCAA attempt to enact sensitivity censorship forcibly upon
member schools? Possibly. Could the NCAA submit member
schools to greater rules violation scrutiny if they refuse to consent
to name changes? Equally possible. The litmus test will
undoubtedly come in Florida.
The Florida State University Seminoles have been one of the
preeminent college football powers for the better part of two
decades. To begin all home games, a student garbed as the
famous Seminole Indian chief Osceola (leader of an Indian
rebellion against a federal relocation program), mounted on an
Appaloosa horse, thrusts a flaming spear into the midfield turf.
The spectacle is held sacrosanct by fans of FSU football. While
this bit of collegiate theatrics at FSU may be drawing the ire of
the NCAA, what is truly telling is what does not seem to concern
the governing body.
The legal web site Findlaw has named FSU as the number one in
their Tarnished Twenty rankings. According to Findlaw, the
Tarnished Twenty rankings "are based on the number and
severity of ongoing or recently concluded criminal, civil, NCAA
and other administrative proceedings and investigations involving
players, coaches, boosters or other persons or entities
associated with a program." Even though the Seminoles have
been enshrined in this legal hall of shame, there are no current
NCAA investigations surrounding FSU football. However, the
smart money says that if the NCAA "strongly recommends" the
elimination of Indian names and FSU fails to comply, the legal
run-ins of Seminole players will suddenly become a source of
great concern to the NCAA.
It's either that or get ready for the Florida State Garnet.
C.T. Rossi comments on contemporary culture for the Free
Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org).
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com